Bjorn_L

Bjorn_L

Lives in United States Seattle, WA, United States
Joined on Jul 29, 2009
About me:

Current Cameras:
Nikon d700 with a number of lenses.
Nikon d90 with a number of lenses.
Sony rx10
and a couple of older dust collectors.
Previous Cameras:
Mostly Minolta film cameras (and 1 Canon), Minolta 7d, Canon 500d (aka T1i), and a close to a dozen bridge and pocket cameras. My favorite was the Minolta 7i.

Comments

Total: 108, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On 2014 Holiday Gift Guide: $500 and up article (5 comments in total)

type-o
The gift of gigantic storage capacity is loving permission for the photographer in your live to shoot

change to

The gift of gigantic storage capacity is loving permission for the photographer in your life to shoot

Also logic error. Implied strongly is that you get 12tb of storage AND raid protection. If you choose 12tb, you get NO protection and in fact raise your probability of an error by a ^2 since in a stripe set the entire data set is lost if either disk goes down. So you get 12TB of storage in a high risk configuration or 6tb with data protected in a mirror (raid).

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2014 at 22:47 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
On Sony Alpha 77 II firmware update improves AF speed article (153 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tharaphita: It must have been really bad, if they were able to make it 2,5 faster. Lol

Tharaphita, I had the same thought.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 12:43 UTC
On Sony Alpha 77 II firmware update improves AF speed article (153 comments in total)
In reply to:

tecnoworld: I hope they'll test the new improved AF against the samsung nx1 and the top performer Nikon D750.

For the test to be valid, it could not be a living thing as those are random. An RC with a doll glued to the top would be better.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 12:41 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

I mean seriously, you think ANYONE is stupid enough to buy your claims that what you do in post-processing impacts the original image as captured? Good lord!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 16:18 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

I'm not arguing physics, were I to do so you wouldn't understand that either. Your ignorant blather that downsizing has anything to do with photons is so far that it is mind boggling that anyone, no matter how ill-versed would post it.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 16:16 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

What happens in POST PROCESSING, for example downsizing, has nothing to do with ISO or DR in the original image.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 13:10 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

I suggest you read up on the effects of photo stitching vs HDR

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 11:09 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

Still don't get the OBVIOUS texinwien?
You are ignoring the point that more photons aren't being captured, just the same amount over and over.
And more images aren't being blended. Blended is photo stacking which does not increase resolution, it would be a 16mp final image.
You are confusing HDR and similar techniques with photo stitching.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 10:21 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

Where that exact noise will be and how bad it will look is (as you say) random. However SNR is fairly predictable. So if you took 4 photos with the same settings on of the same scene with the same sensor there would be some variation in where the noise is and what it looks like but the actual amount of noise vs the amount of "noise-free" data would be the same.
Downsampling a 40mp image to a 16mp image will almost certainly produce a lower noise image. But as I said over and over, hiding noise by turning a 40mp image into a smaller size is not SNR it does not change how much noise there was only how much you see at a smaller resolution.
Consider the similar resolution Nikon d800. If it had a SNR of 90 at whatever ISO is was used at you can't change that image down to 16mp and claim it had an SNR of 99 simply because you managed to hide most of the noise by discarding data.
What you do in post is what you do in post. It has nothing to do with what the camera produced.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 02:19 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

No Texinwien you are failing to understand something very very basic.
If you have an image which is 80% signal 20% noise. And you combine it with 3 more images which are the same ratio then the resulting image would still be 80% signal and 20% noise.... just 4 times as large.
Would the SNR be the same for 4 exposures? Yes, given that the exact same exposure settings, same scene and same sensor would be used.
Signal to noise for the thick headed or professional fan boys is just the amount of good data vs bad data in a data set. When you increase the data set size the ratio it contains is the same (DR & ISO is the same).
(80+80+80+80) = 320
(20+20+20+20) = 80
320+80= 400
320/400 = 80% signal
Down sampling can potentially hide some noise. But like I explained above this doesn't change how much noise was there originally.
The Nikon d800 has a good SNR because it has a higher % of good data to bad data, not because you can down-sample its 36mp images to some smaller image size.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 01:44 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

Nope, you don't get it. I'm tired of explaining.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2014 at 22:13 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

That might mask the noise. I would be surprised if it did not. This is not the same as saying it has lower ISO noise. A d800 is 36mp, it has very low noise not because you can down sample the image but because the signal to noise ratio is very good.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2014 at 00:53 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

deleted forum barfed and dup posted

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2014 at 00:41 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

Do you not know what SNR means?
Simply put it is amount of bad data to good data. Increasing the amount of data does not change this as it is a ratio. This is what is ISO noise. Read up on it at DXO or other site if you need more info.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2014 at 00:36 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

Please read it again within context of this conversation and I am sure the DR comments will make sense. ISO performance does not improve by raising pixel count. Canon, for example, has multiple times raised pixel count without improvement to their ISO performance. That is a function of SNR not pixels. You can generally downsample to reduce noise but that is not the same as not having the noise.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2014 at 23:26 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

Mosc, I am following that. But it is multiple s shots from the same sensor with the same exposure settings. This is not HDR, and so I see nothing which would improve base ISO or DR. Only potentially raise the pixel count.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2014 at 20:30 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

Dheorl, If this were true then cameras with good DR would have good ISO and vs versa in a predictable ratio 123 ISO = 1.23 DR but this is not the case. DR is not related to ISO. The d7100 at base ISO has DR exceeding cameras with better ISO performance.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2014 at 14:30 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Will this technology also help with Dynamic range and noise ?

No it would not. Both are a function of the sensor prior to being wiggled about.
You could try to get a larger image and down sample it to reduce noise but given that it is the same sensor taking the shot from multiple fractionally different locations, I am not sure how effective that would be.
Dynamic range would be unchanged.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2014 at 02:24 UTC
In reply to:

new boyz: 16mp to 40mp? The sensor has to shift more than half of its length to get that.

No it wouldn't. You're thinking linearly.
They could move it less than a pixel width and get more data between their existing pixels.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2014 at 02:21 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1864 comments in total)

Seems like a lovely pocket camera. Something to finally trump the Sony RX100 series.
However the "multi-aspect" cropping modes is just stupid. How about using the entire sensor and letting us choose how to crop it ourself? Tossing out 25% of the pixels (or more) by doing what anyone with any photo editing software can do better on their own?
It doesn't change the fact that this is the camera with the largest sensor in class (ignoring the APS-C bulky things). But all anyone who wants to trump this camera has to do is make a clone of it without these modes and they can legitimately claim to have a 25% effective larger sensor and a higher resolution as well.
Dumbest feature ever.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 18:05 UTC as 361st comment | 8 replies
Total: 108, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »